[the_watcher]

Unfortunately the cameras are pricey enough that only 15 of 30 NBA teams have purchased them, not to mention the half decade of work it took the Raptors to build the code to actually generate the visualizations. Maybe someday it will be commercially available and affordable, but that day seems a long way off to me.

[ssharp]

I'm wondering why the 15 other teams aren't on board yet. If the price is only 100k, it's nothing to an NBA team. If those other 15 teams don't already have an advanced analytics team in place, then it makes sense not to have the camera until you have a structure in place to make sure of the camera data.

It will be interesting with this huge push in basketball over the past couple years to see where this type of analysis leads. The NBA model right now is pretty simple: get two or three superstars, align them with solid role players, and play in championships. It's hard to imagine analytics pushing a team like Houston to be able to beat a team like Miami or Oklahoma City in a seven-game series because the talent gap is so substantial. Houston can play a smarter game but the other teams still function better. What I could see happening, however, if a team like Oklahoma City, while slightly less talented than Miami, can implement insights from this analysis to raise their EV, it might overcome the slightly smaller talent gap. Even in that small sense, it makes more to spend a couple million a year on analytics than it does to pay an average NBA player several million. Since the NBA has both a salary cap and maximum contracts, it pushes the price of an average play up quite a bit, so better value may be had by raising the effectiveness of your current talent than trying to bring in new players.

[the_watcher]

I completely agree, but, as referenced in the article, there is still pretty strong resistance to analytics-driven decision making in the NBA. Many NBA coaches and GM's are former players, who generally resist advanced stats. Hence "it can't measure personality, chemistry, heart." That quote fails to mention neither can anything else, so it makes much more sense to focus on what can be measured than on what can't (I'll concede personality should in some cases be taken into account if there are clear clashes).

[dfxm12]

Forget the advanced stats, it also elucidates the best defensive/offensive scheme for the team. That's part of a coach's job description right there. It's probably also not much of a stretch to encroach on the scouts' & GM's territory too - How will our team look if we trade Lopez for Howard? - for example.

When the system gets more optimized and easier to use, the role of a coach & GM could get diminished, and with it, their salaries. Of course they would do everything in their power to stop that.

[the_watcher]

Except for the coaches who embrace it. When the Mavericks hired Rick Carlisle, a big reason they hired him was that in Indiana he had consistently used his teams best lineups, and in his interviews expressed a strong interest in embracing analytics (which, with Mark Cuban as your owner, you won't ever lack the resources to get the best analytics). In baseball, the best (in terms of wins/resources) team is the Rays, who hired investment bankers as their GM and have a coach who listens to the sabermatricians, platooning like crazy and shifting the infield all over.

[icelancer]

>I'm wondering why the 15 other teams aren't on board yet. If the price is only 100k, it's nothing to an NBA team. If those other 15 teams don't already have an advanced analytics team in place, then it makes sense not to have the camera until you have a structure in place to make sure of the camera data.

As someone who is on the periphery of working in a professional sport in both analytics and player development, the simple answer is the fact that market forces are comparatively weak here. You have monopolies with a ton of inertia in doing things the same way, plus a lot of the decision-makers are luddites in nature who think the human element is the single most important factor.

Times are changing as the economics of sports tightens and becomes more efficient, but it's not like there are ways to disrupt the market openly. The Dallas Mavericks (Cuban) and the Houston Rockets (Morey) are the ones leading the charge in the NBA, just like the Oakland Athletics (Beane), Cleveland Indians (Shapiro), and Tampa Bay Rays (Friedman) led the charge in MLB.

[nickalewis]

I don't think it's the cost that's keeping other NBA Teams from purchasing ($100K/year is pennies to an NBA franchise). I suspect its more of a front-office vs coaching thing. Adopting this as part of a teams core prep takes education; Effectively learning how to understand this type of data and apply it in practice over the course of a season.

[the_watcher]

It should be pennies to an NBA franchise (when they are spending millions on players who don't play). Unfortunately, owners like Robert Sarver and Donald Sterling are notorious for refusing to spend on marginal upgrades like a quality visitors locker room, or a a full support staff. Even Paul Allen has a reputation for refusing to pay for a high quality training staff in Portland - probably a bit undeserved since he seems to spend on other important things and I can't imagine why training staff would be something he ignores. Also, there is a floor for player salaries that must be met.

The analytics vs. coaching issue is a real one too, but don't discount owners being cheap.